Originally posted by kevcvs57Huff and puff and blow my straw house down.
Can you please point out where in this exchange I have demonstrated a tendency to sexism, if you think poking mild fun at a poster who was 'bestial' enough to use the word 'love' in relation to another poster then you should probably book yourself a place on the next available 'Equality and Diversity' course.
RJH is overtly sexist and delights in that provocative role. I responded when your post treated one of his irritating comments as amusing and joined in his little joke.
Typically, when a group sets about bullying someone, it has its leaders and its followers and its bystanders and cloaks unacceptable social behaviour in the mask of what you so naively refer to as "mild fun." Naturally this enables the group to label anyone who objects as lacking a sense of humour.
13 Oct 12
Originally posted by finneganits termed a mob mentality in which all references to personal responsibility are lost,
Huff and puff and blow my straw house down.
RJH is overtly sexist and delights in that provocative role. I responded when your post treated one of his irritating comments as amusing and joined in his little joke.
Typically, when a group sets about bullying someone, it has its leaders and its followers and its bystanders and cloaks unacceptable socia ...[text shortened]... ." Naturally this enables the group to label anyone who objects as lacking a sense of humour.
one often sees it at football matches. One of the most disturbing cases of a mob
mentality and bullying i have come across is here, this has thoroughly depressed me
and it will take days to recover,
http://globalgrind.com/news/amanda-todd-bullied-canadian-teen-commits-suicide-video?gpage=0#gtop
scroll down for her video.
Originally posted by finneganYou demonstrate the "lack of sense of humor nicely." I would bet the Duchess can see some humor in it, even though she is high class broad.
Huff and puff and blow my straw house down.
RJH is overtly sexist and delights in that provocative role. I responded when your post treated one of his irritating comments as amusing and joined in his little joke.
Typically, when a group sets about bullying someone, it has its leaders and its followers and its bystanders and cloaks unacceptable socia ." Naturally this enables the group to label anyone who objects as lacking a sense of humour.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThanks Robbie.
its termed a mob mentality in which all references to personal responsibility are lost,
one often sees it at football matches. One of the most disturbing cases of a mob
mentality and bullying i have come across is here, this has thoroughly depressed me
and it will take days to recover,
http://globalgrind.com/news/amanda-todd-bullied-canadian-teen-commits-suicide-video?gpage=0#gtop
scroll down for her video.
A good account of how sexism acts to bully women in chess is supplied by the Duchess several posts back. [From this we may reasonably infer, RJH, a failure to class this as "humour."]
A key role in bullying is that of the bystander. It is crucial to recognize that all bullying takes place in an environment which is permissive of that behaviour.
It may be argued that the bystander, being inactive and passive, has no responsibility and it is also arguable that the need to rush about rescuing other people who can and should look after themselves is foolish and misguided. Martin Niemöller gave the classic response to those views. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller
13 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganPresent your evidence of bullying to the moderator if you think kevcvs57 or myself are bullying anyone. I for one, believe you do not know what bullying is. I think you are just trying to gain brownie points with the Duchess, who has proven very capable of taking up for herself. Perhaps you should look into the possiblity of bullying techniques being used against me to shut my mouth.
Thanks Robbie.
A good account of how sexism acts to bully women in chess is supplied by the Duchess several posts back. [From this we may reasonably infer, RJH, a failure to class this as "humour."]
A key role in bullying is that of the bystander. It is crucial to recognize that all bullying takes place in an environment which is permissive of that ...[text shortened]... r gave the classic response to those views. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Niem%C3%B6ller
13 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganAgain Finnegan your attempts to censure me by abusing the term sexism, which is a form of discrimination is reprehensible, my comments to RJ were a mild jibe with the intention of rebuking him for his ass kissing in the direction of another poster, for you to pretend otherwise is tantamount to lying, so I will have to assume that when threatened intellectually you resort to bullying tactics and lies.
Huff and puff and blow my straw house down.
RJH is overtly sexist and delights in that provocative role. I responded when your post treated one of his irritating comments as amusing and joined in his little joke.
Typically, when a group sets about bullying someone, it has its leaders and its followers and its bystanders and cloaks unacceptable socia ." Naturally this enables the group to label anyone who objects as lacking a sense of humour.
The fact that you are prepared to utilise a debilitating social reality for many women leads me to assume that you are a prepared to indulge in misogyny of the highest order in to stifle the opinions of an opponent. I shall from this point know you as a Stalinist and misogynist.
Originally posted by kevcvs57Read this again:
Again Finnegan your attempts to censure me by abusing the term sexism, which is a form of discrimination is reprehensible, my comments to RJ were a mild jibe with the intention of rebuking him for his ass kissing in the direction of another poster, for you to pretend otherwise is tantamount to lying, so I will have to assume that when threatened intellectua ...[text shortened]... fle the opinions of an opponent. I shall from this point know you as a Stalinist and misogynist.
RJH is overtly sexist and delights in that provocative role. I responded when your post treated one of his irritating comments as amusing and joined in his little joke.
As you now appear to endorse my disapproval of overt sexism, and I cannot think in that case you would disagree that RJH has been posting material of that nature, then there is an awful lot of what you have written that is deeply wrong headed. It would be more coherent for you to distance yourself from RJH than to join him in an emotive and irrational assault on the things I wrote.
In other words, your complaint now seems to be not that I objected to the sexist remarks of RJH, but that I included you in that rebuke. If you were less carried away with your self important outrage you might have noticed that most of what you wrote can be read as supporting RJH in this matter.
You are with him or against him on this matter. You can't be both.
Originally posted by finneganYou could try reading some of my other posts going back to my arrival on these forums and decide for yourself, I do not feel the need to exonerate myself in any way as my post was a rebuke to RJ for ingratiating Himself with an already very confident and self possessed poster.
Read this again:
RJH is overtly sexist and delights in that provocative role. I responded when your post treated one of his irritating comments as amusing and joined in his little joke.
As you now appear to endorse my disapproval of overt sexism, and I cannot think in that case you would disagree that RJH has been posting material of t ...[text shortened]... ting RJH in this matter.
You are with him or against him on this matter. You can't be both.
"You are with him or against him on this matter. You can't be both."
I will admit that the charge of sexism against Him for using the word 'love' which for me is gender neutral in that it could be used in a male to male, or female to female exchange, seems a bit OTT, my knowledge of the character he presents leads me to doubt that he meant it in a sexual manner.
Do you really see it in the same vein as the video posted by Robbie in which a young woman was first stalked by an internet based sexual predator and ultimately driven to self harm and suicide by internet, and very real world bully's; really?
I believe it is a tad irresponsible to devalue the term sexism to the point where actual sexist's and misogynist's can do their political correctness gone mad routine, rather than be shamed and peer pressured into acceptable patterns of behavior.
"You are with him or against him on this matter. You can't be both."
You see Finnegan that is where we differ in our approach to people, someone can have attitudes and opinions that I wholeheartedly disagree with but I can still be with them, because I believe that we are all the product of our socialisation process, and whilst the poster can be incredibly annoying, and at times, He expresses opinions that would be regarded as extreme in most circles, He does not deserve to be personally vilified for the buffoonery of His rhp character.
Originally posted by kevcvs57Well said. Caught in the brambles of idiots mate.
You could try reading some of my other posts going back to my arrival on these forums and decide for yourself, I do not feel the need to exonerate myself in any way as my post was a rebuke to RJ for ingratiating Himself with an already very confident and self possessed poster.
"You are with him or against him on this matter. You can't be both."
I wil ...[text shortened]... e does not deserve to be personally vilified for the buffoonery of His rhp character.
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by kevcvs57If you don't think someone like RJHinds should be vilified for what he says on this forum, even when you disagree with what he says wholeheartedly, why are you attempting to vilify Finnegan on account of the fact that you disagree with what he says wholeheartedly?
You see Finnegan that is where we differ in our approach to people, someone can have attitudes and opinions that I wholeheartedly disagree with but I can still be with them, because I believe that we are all the product of our socialisation process, and whilst the poster can be incredibly annoying, and at times, He expresses opinions that would be regarded ...[text shortened]... circles, He does not deserve to be personally vilified for the buffoonery of His rhp character.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by finneganWhile I agree with allot of what you say I have to disagree with you whole heartedly here.
However, I do point out frequently that many scientists do now and always did adhere to a religious faith with great sincerity. I do so to make clear that it is a mischievous untruth to allege that science is inherently atheist, since it is compatible with many faiths, if not with your minority sect (whatever its merits, it is in a minority). A minority of ...[text shortened]... did not all endorse each others arguments then we would find the distinctions more significant.
Many scientists (although much less than a majority nowadays) do indeed believe in god and/or are religious.
However in the science vs religion compatibility debate the question is not can people be scientists/accept
science and be religious/believe in god at the same time.
Because the answer is obviously that they evidently can and we know that people are more than capable of
believing multiple mutually exclusive and contradictory things.
The question is science compatible in principle with religion.
To which the answer is and must be no.
They are diametrically opposed.
There are few things that are universal about religions, they do not for example all include a belief in a god or gods.
However everything that we classify as a religion has these two.
A belief in some sort of afterlife/continuation of a person after death in some form or other. (other than the simple
continued existence of the matter they were made from) and that what you do and think in this life effects your
situation and/or entry into this afterlife.
And a requirement to believe the tenets of the religion and belief system on faith.
i.e. without evidence and despite any evidence to the contrary.
The principles upon which science is founded absolutely require that no belief is ever based on faith.
Everything MUST be backed up by evidence and no hypothesis may be accepted without sufficient evidence
and any hypothesis MUST be discarded if the evidence contradicts it.
And the evidence we have indicates that there is no afterlife or soul or life force or spirit.
Thus ALL religions (and any other faith based beliefs) are incompatible with science.
Science and religion are absolutely incompatible.
Science is thus inherently atheist BECAUSE the evidence doesn't indicate the existence of a god and thus says
that belief in one is not supportable. If the evidence indicated that a god did exist then this wouldn't be the case
but there is no evidence for the existence of god/s.
Science is inherently anti-religion (theism being a subset of religion) as the evidence strongly indicates the non-existence
of any sort of soul, spirit, or afterlife.
The fact that there are scientists who believe in gods and afterlives and claim that science and religion are compatible doesn't
alter the fact that at their cores science and religion are diametrically opposed to one another.
Those scientists that claim otherwise are confused.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by skywalker redTo whom are you talking?
wouldnt it be better if you just told us something from you that wasnt qouted verbatim from someone else. Something original. you just inserted someone elses Ideas(narratives) into a thread now you want a response?
how about coming up with your own narrative?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Oct 12
The post that was quoted here has been removedIt's not just a problem in chess. (although I am sure you are well aware of this)
The free-thought/atheist/skeptic community is currently facing up to the fact that for
too long it's been a boys club where sexism (and some other isms) have been tolerated
whilst we chastised religions for doing these things (on a grander scale admittedly).
And the gaming/tech/IT community is starting to wake up to the fact that it's also got
quite the boys club sexism problem.
We have thousands of years worth of male dominated inertia to society and despite all the
great improvements that have been made it's depressing to see how far is still to go.
And yes RJHinds is a sexist misogynist dinosaur who seems determined to be the perfect
caricature of a southern USA Christian creationist who deserves to be ignored and marginalised
for that.
However I have a general feeling that lies and mistruths should be rebutted and refuted wherever
they are found even if the originator wont alter their view someone else reading them might.
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by FMFFinnegan and I were having a robust discussion and may have done a bit of vilifying, but it was pretty much fifty fifty in terms of who was vilifying who, do you have an opinion on the thread topic or have you just popped in to score some thumbs.
If you don't think someone like RJHinds should be vilified for what he says on this forum, even when you disagree with what he says wholeheartedly, why are you attempting to vilify Finnegan on account of the fact that you disagree with what he says wholeheartedly?